Overseas airspace – how did I ever live?
 

When I was ready to leave Fort Worth in August 1982 on my solo around the world helicopter flight, I went to the Meacham Field briefing office to submit my full position VFR flight plan. They wouldn’t accept it.

“How dangerous!” I thought.

They told me they used an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) recommendation where VFR flew at a 500’ different level, and they used a system called ‘see and avoid’ for VFR flying when enroute.

“How dangerous!” I thought.

I somehow managed to get right across the USA, and amazingly, I lived! I kept asking what frequency I was supposed to be on, and all the pilots and controllers looked at me quite mystified. There was no frequency for VFR aircraft when flying enroute. They said, “Enjoy yourself. Look at the scenery.”

However I preferred the Aussie system where you were looking down at your flight plan most of the time, working out position reports and communicating with ATS every 30 minutes. You hardly had time to look out. But you were just like a proper professional pilot.

Amazingly enough, as I continued with the flight, I found out that the other countries were just as incompetent! First of all, Canada, then Greenland, Iceland, the UK, France, Italy – I won’t go on. Not one of these countries would accept a full position VFR fight plan, and not one of them could give me a frequency so I could have ATS communications going all the time in my ear.

Fortunately I somehow lived until I got to Darwin. Oh, it was great to be in Australia. Not only could I put in a full position flight plan, but because I was going over 50 miles (heading from Darwin to Sydney) it was compulsory.

It was also a far safer system as it did not use the dangerous ICAO 500' VFR cruising levels. IFR and VFR flew at the same levels! On departure from Darwin, I got held by the military air traffic control for about 20 minutes, orbiting on the way out. Some time later I was held at Nobbys, also by a military controller, on the way towards Japan on the last part of the flight. Yes, it was so obvious to me why we were so much safer in Australia as these were the only times I was held in the whole world flight.

As I flew across Australia I was communicating all the time – a little bit on VHF but mainly on HF, giving position reports and monitoring all the aircraft.

I was dreading leaving Australia, but when I did I suddenly found I was into this international ICAO ‘dangerous’ system, where they would not accept full position VFR flight plans, and there was no mandatory frequency for VFR to monitor.

Somehow I lived and I got back to the USA. I couldn’t believe it.

I suppose in a way it is good to see that we are reversing back to the system of the 1980s. I congratulate CASA for enforcing the sensible rule that all aircraft at non-marked airports should be on the ATS area frequency. It will be just like it was 35 years ago.

Now all we have to do is to bring back the quadrantal rule so IFR and VFR fly at the same levels, and bring back full position flight planning for VFR aircraft that fly higher than 5,000 feet or more than 50 miles.

Only then will it be safe!

You've lived how long in Aus, Dick, and never figured out that everything here is either compulsory or banned...?

Great! I'll visit you next time I'm over there! :ok:

Yeah but Australia is upside down compared to America so that system couldn't possibly work. Luckily casa know this and resist people who may think they know better.

Plazbot. Yes you are correct. I should stop saying this. I am like a cracked record.

Better not to repeat that we don't copy the best from around the world. We designed the Nomad. The yanks the 747. What would they know.

Better not to remind people like Plazbot of this. Better to suppress any discussion on it.

I somehow doubt Dick and I are ever going to be best friends, but he does raise some valid, relevant points. Perhaps rather than instantly dismissing the ideas he puts forward we should consider what he is proposing? Seems a bit backward to resist moving forwards because some people still think things were a bit better in the 1950s and we should keep it that way. I haven't flown in America so I don't really know what the system is there, but I would certainly be willing to give it a chance and see how it goes.

Dick, I think it was only compulsory for charter. Private flights have always been able to go nosar. Sure it was frowned upon, called "nosar, no sense" and all that garbage but it was a legitimate and legal way to fly. I did it way back then (to the disgust of Flight Services), you could have too.

I think you were bluffed and you could have legally flown Darwin to Sydney with no plan.

Having not started flying until 2006 I have never had the restrictions Dick had in 1982 Australia. I love flying in this country and I thought we had it pretty good here, and compared to some countries I'm sure we have. However is was not until I went to the States for an endorsement that I realized how restricted we VFR pilots still are. Flying over there was a revelation, their system works, everyone knows the system and it works well. Air traffic control are there to serve and help. No plan required. FAA people I had dealings with were efficient and courteous and actually seem to want to make aviation work. The only money I had to pay for my FAA certificate was $50 to CASA to send a validation email to the FAA! Independent instructors without the overhead of our expensive AOCs keep the costs down.








Will we change? I doubt it. Useless politicians, apathetic public, divided aviation bodies, RAAF has way too much say and their ex members keep finding jobs high up in civilian aviation administration for some unknown reason. We have an abundance of people who tell us why we can't do something and very asking how we can. Some of you guys who think our system is so good really need to go to the US. Go to Oshkosh in late July and see what busy really means. Go to LAX and see how VFR pilots can get through a busy airspace without having to detour out to sea or over tiger country (or put a plan in). I'm back there next year for another endorsement holiday!

Aussie. No. It was mandatory. I removed the mandatory reqirement when I became chairman in 1991.

It was mandatory full position reporting above 5000' because IFR and VFR flew at the same levels. When Flight Service gave you traffic information they did not tell you if the traffic was IFR of VFR as that was not relevant.

When I flew around Australia in 1984 in the jetranger I had to put in a full position flight plan to go to Raine Island off Cape York. Flight Service then called me and said that they had calculated that I would be too far over water without floats .

That's how concerned they were for you in those days.

But I did love all the FS outstations at places like Weipa and Ceduna The FS officer would even loan me his car !

Heaven forbid a pilot should have to use a map and nav log to work out where they were every 30 minutes or so and revise their ETA ... the talking part should have just been a quick report of what you already knew if you were navigating properly, shouldn't it?!

And had you planned to be too far over water?
Glad someone knew the rules.

Most of the NT back then was a Designated Remote Area. The minimum you could have planned was Sartime. Most pilots flew full reporting in the GFA because it was a good idea. Tended to narrow the search area a bit.

Some will remember....(Onya 'Traffic')...The 'Rules of the day'.

In the 'Designated Remote Areas', of which there were a couple, SARTIME with an EPIRB, was the minimum for PVT flights, Full Reporting - i.e.carriage of HF was the real requirement for every other flight, inc. VFR CHTR.

For 'obvious' reasons at the time /era. As has been stated, it did reduce the search area in the event of a mishap.

From memory, (So don't bite me head orf) The Central 'GAFA' was largely 'DRA', as was the Snowy area.

VFR / SARTIME Flights from Darwin to Alice were to be 'via highway'.
Pretty straightforward if nil HF. Carriage of HF meant you could plan to go 'anywhere'...

e.g. From Derby to Kununnura transitted the NW part of the large 'Central DRA', and we had to 'assist' on occasion, some 'East Coast' pilots doing their 'round OZ' trip sans HF and Sans ELT (As it was called at the time), to 'hire' an ELT from an obliging local to make them 'legal'.
(The rate was very reasonable.... so I'm led to believe...)

All necessary info was in the VFR Flight Guide of the time, with diagrams.....
However, some people just didn't read so it seems....

Cheers:ok:

p.s. Yes Dick, Mr Carson at Ceduna was a VERY obliging fellow.....

So it wasn't mandatory! Except if you went over 5000'. So what I did all those years ago, heading out without a lodged flight plan was actually legal. I thought so at the time anyway.

BTW, I agree with your post. I still remember the ninnies at the (CAsA) meetings stating how the countryside would be littered with missing aviators because we were moving away from full reporting. Wonder where they are now?

Dick I have not flown in the US but here have under the old mandatory reporting system and obviously under the following procedures from stopping mandatory reporting to the introduction of alphabet airspaces etc etc

My understanding is you think we should adopt the US VFR airspace procedures (for VFR ops).


I understand that that the US and Oz systems have similar outcomes in terms of accident rates per hours flown so it probably is not a safety issue that should drive us (or is it?)

I suspect the advantages you see would be in terms of convenience and cost reduction?

I would be interested to know what you see as the advantages and how it would effect my day to day activities (good and bad)


I have an open mind to change (pretty helpful the way aviation procedures seem to change so regularly over the years with often not much impact... ;)) but am not interested in change for change sake or for minimal effect so you would have to sell me to the idea.

So...

1. How do the US procedures differ from the current Oz system (in broad terms - ie how would it change how I would practically operate under VFR in Oz).

2. What major advantages do you see in moving that way?

Same words, same place over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head. Held at Nobbys Head .......................................................... BOING !!:ugh:

Clearly Atlas, you have never been held at Nobbys for ages on a clear blue day, just in case some bloke on final into Willy has to go around and may suffer an engine failure if he does.

If there may be a more efficient way then why not try it? I'm all for debate on the system and the merits of each, attacking the player just seems infantile and unnecessary.

The player's ideas are being attacked, IMO for good reason.

Atlas. I sold my beach house at Tuckers Rocks because I simply could not put up wth the holding at low level at places like Anna Bay.

If we ever have a war we are going to be in dire straights if the existng RAAF people are in charge . They simply don't have the ability to copy the best from around the world .

Friends of mine still fly the route and still get held. If they made it the the same airspace classification as Heathrow the unsafe holding would not take place.